Encana to moves to the U.S. - more job losses for Alberta
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Ships are safer:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...orting-crude-oil-rail-truck-pipeline-or-boat/
Ships are more energy efficient:
http://setxind.com/midstream/pipeline-ship-rail-benefits-needs-different-oil-gas-transport-methods/
There is no more efficient method of moving anything than on water.
We can't rely on the West for you to supply us.
"Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" so, for strategic reasons, we need to have more reliable suppliers.
Makes you wonder why the USA has a 500,000 miles of pipelines in their country.
But put simply, you're wrong based on a cost per bbl over time.
Include capital costs related to acquisition/development/construction of a pipeline vs tanker/supertanker AND incorporate operating costs, insurance and personnel against the useful life of each modality and the pipeline wins out every time.
Hell, we haven't even talked about moorage, demurrage or other costs related to entering or departing port facilities.
The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.
Do the math and you'll understand why pipeline transpo is far more cost effective
We are already supplying you with NG 4 TC Energy lines 1 Enbridge line
Why are you changing the subject?
Makes you wonder why the Mississippi system is clogged with barges carrying oil.
Maybe, it's not that easy to move petroleum through South Dakota by ship.
Could be.
p.s. Does oil go bad in transit when it takes three weeks? What's the hurry?
Anyway, Saudi Arabia and Alberta both blackmail us but historically, the Saudis are probably more reliable.
Because there is a bottleneck in Oklahoma which has eased some with the Southern leg of Keystone XL
Yeah, it does make you wonder why there's only 275 barges each carrying 30,000 bbls, and I'm guessing that it will take a wee bit of time to barge it from North to South or East to West.
But I digress... Are you giving up on your position that ocean freighters are less costly on a per bbl basis over time?
On that note, we here in the West are in no hurry for oil, hell, it's damn near everywhere, we get it the moment we want.
PS - If you think you're being blackmailed now, just wait a wee bit and you'll really see how competitive the market is... (Hope that the winter isn't too cold, might have to throw on a sweater before ya think of adjusting the thermostat)
We get oil from: the Saudis, Norwegians, Brits, Venezuela, Mexico, the United States, The Emirates, Nigeria, Aruba, the Maghrib ... all bought on the spot market. I'm sure that we won't be running out.
You were
The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.
btw it has been poised for many years now
The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.
btw it has been poised for many years now
Oil tankers come in many sizes and to that end, many load bitumen each and every week and sail out of Burrard inlet.
... Look closely n English Bay and you'll see these tankers lined-up waiting to load
The whole conversation in the last couple of pages had nothing to do with TMX, please do keep up